Your opinion solicited- Was: USPA Prompts Virginia Liability Action
Recommended Posts
slug 1
QuoteI agree. Usually I hear that statement in conjunction with, " The USPA's goal is to keep skydivers skydiving."
Where the money comes from in the USPA budget is irrelevant to me. Unless someone knows private pilots who want to take me and thousands of other skydivers on free rides to altitude, Dropzones (as a business) and skydivers are in the same boat.
Spoken like a true unbiased Tandem driver, AFF, S/l and Coach, and rigger without a hidden agenda. I assume your USPA dues are tax deductiable and you work at a DZ.
Not picking a fight just calling it like I see it.
R.I.P.
Your assumption is wrong. I work 55+ hrs a week at a real, non-skydiving, job. Spend enough time at a small midwestern cessna DZ and you'll end up w/ ratings. 
Ken
Ken
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken
Ken
vonSanta 0
Hm, all this litigation stuff must be kinda nerve wrecking, no?
Most of my US acquaintances and friends seem to have a very real worry about civil suits - in all aspects of life. Am told you can counter sue and get the other fellow to pay for the court costs etc, but that this isn't always possible or a solution. So I understand a desire to lower the risk of suits.
But correct me if I am wrong. In the US, most DZs are commercial entities, no? (not club based as in Denmark)? And the ones making the suits would be skydivers?
If this is the case it seems a bit odd to me that the customers, buying a product from a company, should pay to have their possibilites for legal actions reduced.
Maybe I am not understanding the US situation correctly, but if what I stated above is true, then I cannot see how the customers and the businesses are in the same boat. Sure, it is in the interest of the customer to get a good price and that might happen if insurance wasn't too high, but it is also in the customers interest to have as many legal options as possible.
And, as business entities, it's their own job to ensure that operating costs are kept at a minimum. A sensible business owner cannot expect that his customers will fork over money in the hope that the business owner, after receiving benefits, will carry a trickle of it on to the customer. That the customer does accept this burden is an indication of both desperation and loyalty. Yet it's almost a form of blackmail - "you need us to jump, so pay this now coz we won't and if it doesn't get paid we'll raise our prices".
As far as price hikes go, I suspect supply and demand would take care of that.
I sincerely hope I've misunderstood something here and that I'll be corrected. However there's a part of me that says I haven't.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
Most of my US acquaintances and friends seem to have a very real worry about civil suits - in all aspects of life. Am told you can counter sue and get the other fellow to pay for the court costs etc, but that this isn't always possible or a solution. So I understand a desire to lower the risk of suits.
But correct me if I am wrong. In the US, most DZs are commercial entities, no? (not club based as in Denmark)? And the ones making the suits would be skydivers?
If this is the case it seems a bit odd to me that the customers, buying a product from a company, should pay to have their possibilites for legal actions reduced.
Maybe I am not understanding the US situation correctly, but if what I stated above is true, then I cannot see how the customers and the businesses are in the same boat. Sure, it is in the interest of the customer to get a good price and that might happen if insurance wasn't too high, but it is also in the customers interest to have as many legal options as possible.
And, as business entities, it's their own job to ensure that operating costs are kept at a minimum. A sensible business owner cannot expect that his customers will fork over money in the hope that the business owner, after receiving benefits, will carry a trickle of it on to the customer. That the customer does accept this burden is an indication of both desperation and loyalty. Yet it's almost a form of blackmail - "you need us to jump, so pay this now coz we won't and if it doesn't get paid we'll raise our prices".
As far as price hikes go, I suspect supply and demand would take care of that.
I sincerely hope I've misunderstood something here and that I'll be corrected. However there's a part of me that says I haven't.
Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst
slug 1
QuoteHm, all this litigation stuff must be kinda nerve wrecking, no?
Most of my US acquaintances and friends seem to have a very real worry about civil suits - in all aspects of life. Am told you can counter sue and get the other fellow to pay for the court costs etc, but that this isn't always possible or a solution. So I understand a desire to lower the risk of suits.
But correct me if I am wrong. In the US, most DZs are commercial entities, no? (not club based as in Denmark)? And the ones making the suits would be skydivers?
If this is the case it seems a bit odd to me that the customers, buying a product from a company, should pay to have their possibilites for legal actions reduced.
Maybe I am not understanding the US situation correctly, but if what I stated above is true, then I cannot see how the customers and the businesses are in the same boat. Sure, it is in the interest of the customer to get a good price and that might happen if insurance wasn't too high, but it is also in the customers interest to have as many legal options as possible.
And, as business entities, it's their own job to ensure that operating costs are kept at a minimum. A sensible business owner cannot expect that his customers will fork over money in the hope that the business owner, after receiving benefits, will carry a trickle of it on to the customer. That the customer does accept this burden is an indication of both desperation and loyalty. Yet it's almost a form of blackmail - "you need us to jump, so pay this now coz we won't and if it doesn't get paid we'll raise our prices".
As far as price hikes go, I suspect supply and demand would take care of that.
I sincerely hope I've misunderstood something here and that I'll be corrected. However there's a part of me that says I haven't.
Your evaluation is correct. It's one of the problems when a business monoply is in charge of a customer organization. The USPA is supposed to represent skydivers, but it's run by the GMDZO's who require USPA membership to jump at their DZ's. The GMDZO's only pay 5% (estimate) of the operating budget of USPA.
The customer has two choice's: want to jump join USPA. Dont want to join USPA it's very challenging to find a DZ to jump at so you can't jump.
From the little that I've read about the BPA and the CPA. They have a similar conflict of interest. The tail wags the dog.
Lifes not fair, don't worry be happy! pay the dues and skydive!
R.I.P.
QuotePost:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is good for drop zones is good for skydivers".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Usually I hear that statement in conjunction with, " The USPA's goal is to keep skydivers skydiving."
Where the money comes from in the USPA budget is irrelevant to me. Unless someone knows private pilots who want to take me and thousands of other skydivers on free rides to altitude, Dropzones (as a business) and skydivers are in the same boat.
worth repeating, very well said....
Chris
slug 1
QuoteI agree. Usually I hear that statement in conjunction with, " The USPA's goal is to keep skydivers skydiving."
Where the money comes from in the USPA budget is irrelevant to me. Unless someone knows private pilots who want to take me and thousands of other skydivers on free rides to altitude, Dropzones (as a business) and skydivers are in the same boat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
worth repeating, very well said....
Chris
Spoken like another true unbiased Tandem driver, AFF, S/l and Coach, and rigger without a hidden agenda. I assume your USPA dues are tax deductiable and you work at a DZ.
Can we save some time here and if your a DZO or work in the industry can you just add your info to the post.
So if there's a appearence of a conflict of interest everyone knows it.For others that are just "fun Jumpers" say so.
Not picking a fight just calling it like I see it.
R.I.P.
slug 1
Quoteposted to rec.skydiving and dropzone.com forum
At USPA BOD meetings (and at other times I recall) I often hear a statement used by BOD members and others present.
"What is good for drop zones is good for skydivers".
(I take this to mean individual USPA members and other skydivers not neccesarily involved in the business of skydiving.)
I would like the opinions of anyone wishing to comment. Do you agree or disagree?
Hi Gary
It's your post but in my opinion based on the above yes and no's. The answers appear to depend on hidden agenda's of some of the folks posting, this only becomes clear when their profiles are back checked againts their published profile.
Was this you intent? To allow the DZO worker bee's to skew your opinion poll?
R.I.P.
peek 20
Quote
Hi Gary
It's your post but in my opinion based on the above yes and no's. The answers appear to depend on hidden agenda's of some of the folks posting, this only becomes clear when their profiles are back checked againts their published profile.
Was this you intent? To allow the DZO worker bee's to skew your opinion poll?
R.I.P.
No, I was just looking for opinions in general, whatever I got. That of course is the problem with open-ended questions like I often ask. It sometimes seems like I am asking for something specific, because most people's questions are more specific.
Some of the best answers I have seen so far are ones that say "it depends", and gives an example. These examples are helpful.
QuoteBut correct me if I am wrong. In the US, most DZs are commercial entities, no? (not club based as in Denmark)? And the ones making the suits would be skydivers?
Sport skydivers are a small sub-set of the people who can possibly sue a Dropzone/ Club. In addition to sport jumpers there are students and tandem passengers.
Lawsuits can be filed by just about anyone associated w/ an injury or fatality in skydiving. An individual's 'estate' can file a lawsuit after a fatality. This includes family members as far reaching as grandparents and children. Health Insurance companies can sue to reclaim their costs associated w/ a claim.
Generally speaking most skydivers would never sue a dropzone for any reason. It's kind of against our ethos to sue the people who provide the service we need to skydive.
QuoteIf this is the case it seems a bit odd to me that the customers, buying a product from a company, should pay to have their possibilites for legal actions reduced.
Skydivers are not buying a product they are buying a service. Dropzones could elect, and some have elected, to exclude sport jumpers from their service. As a sport jumper you have no absolute right to be served by the dropzone. DZ's can do their business taking people on tandem skydives. Gear manufactuers can do their business only w/ military contracts.
DZ's and gear manufacturers don't need sport jumpers. Sport jumpers need gear and 'airlift' service providers (dropzones). The USPA keeps skydivers skydiving by helping to ensure an environment in which skydivers can jump.
It seems to me, as a skydiver, everyone will encur the cost of skydiving either at the USPA dues level or at the dropzone/ gear provider level or perhaps some of both. It's a cost. You're either willing to pay it and skydive or not.
Ken
likes to skydive
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken
Ken
slug 1
Hi Gary
"No, I was just looking for opinions in general, whatever I got. That of course is the problem with open-ended questions like I often ask. It sometimes seems like I am asking for something specific, because most people's questions are more specific.
Some of the best answers I have seen so far are ones that say "it depends", and gives an example. These examples are helpful. "
If the sport is given the legal status as an "extreme sport" the way I understand it this can help the DZO's and their staff with liabilty issues from their fat cash cows
But can it also have a negative effect on fun jumpers, and their insurance rates/or access to: medical, life and liability and disability insurance?
We've seen this when some people try and get homeowners insurance and own a "dog with a bad dog reputation" ie pit bull, rottweiller etc.
Male drivers under the age of 25 have to pay a special rate for auto insurance due to the increeased risk of auto accidents.
There has been some talk on the federal level to start charging Mtn climbers etc for the cost of rescue services, if they get in trouble. This is different than the gov'ts attitude to the cost of finding a lost hiker.
R.I.P.
"No, I was just looking for opinions in general, whatever I got. That of course is the problem with open-ended questions like I often ask. It sometimes seems like I am asking for something specific, because most people's questions are more specific.
Some of the best answers I have seen so far are ones that say "it depends", and gives an example. These examples are helpful. "
If the sport is given the legal status as an "extreme sport" the way I understand it this can help the DZO's and their staff with liabilty issues from their fat cash cows
But can it also have a negative effect on fun jumpers, and their insurance rates/or access to: medical, life and liability and disability insurance?
We've seen this when some people try and get homeowners insurance and own a "dog with a bad dog reputation" ie pit bull, rottweiller etc.
Male drivers under the age of 25 have to pay a special rate for auto insurance due to the increeased risk of auto accidents.
There has been some talk on the federal level to start charging Mtn climbers etc for the cost of rescue services, if they get in trouble. This is different than the gov'ts attitude to the cost of finding a lost hiker.
R.I.P.
I agree. Usually I hear that statement in conjunction with, " The USPA's goal is to keep skydivers skydiving."
Where the money comes from in the USPA budget is irrelevant to me. Unless someone knows private pilots who want to take me and thousands of other skydivers on free rides to altitude, Dropzones (as a business) and skydivers are in the same boat.
Ken
Ken
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites